Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results, as they say. It seems like since the late 1960s, American socialists gave up on their own relatively successful party (which was winning local/state elections and influencing the national parties) to try to work within a two-party system, and that strategy has been a massive failure. Every election, socialists try to influence the party platform and candidates, and are basically disregarded as the party picks its own candidates and ignores its own platform. For 50 years now!
This is probably one of the biggest takeaways from my most recent read, "The 'S' Word - A Short History of an American Tradition ... Socialism" by John Nichols. It's a good book that I recommend to anyone that wants a short overview of important moments in American history that were shaped by socialist ideas (sometimes those ideas were a bit ahead of their time; perhaps the better way to say is those ideas shaped American socialism?). The book covers how Thomas Paine, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, Jr., among others, were all influenced by socialist ideas and principles. It also is a decent short history of the Socialist Party, including the campaigns of Eugene Debs.
But the most interesting chapter to me was the last one, that talked about the socialist movement since the 1960s until today. While never a major party nationally, the Socialist Party was at its apex a very influential party that won local and state elections. In some cities, socialists were the major party, or at least the major opposition party. Socialists were often invited into Republican and Democratic administrations, as appointees or advisors. Many of the policies and programs that we know and love today - medicare, social security, five-day work week, even public water and sewer -- started as party platform demands of socialists that major party candidates adopted in order to win elections.
Unfortunately, the major parties used World War 1 (and later WW2) to stop the socialist movement. Most socialists opposed the US entering the war and spoke out strongly against it. The major parties passed laws declaring any opposition to the war as "unloyal" to the country, making it illegal with a stiff penalty of years in jail. Therefore many socialist party leaders, including presidential candidate Debs, were thrown in jail for a few years before later on having their sentences commuted. The aggressive attacks against 1st amendment speech had a chilling effect, and the party shrank. The socialist party didn't disappear because it was unpopular, it began to disappear because it was undermined by collusion between the major parties against our constitutional principles of freedom of speech. That undermining led to disagreement between factions within the socialist movement on how to best combat attacks from the major parties.
So the question is, what happened in the 1960s? There was a growing movement for the Republican party to move to the right that echoed many of the civil-war-era arguments for "states' rights". Largely the movement grew as an opposition to the expansion of civil rights, with a purposeful campaign known as the "Southern Strategy". The Republican party as we know it today -- not the party of Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt -- was forming.
To combat that, some socialist leaders, in particular Michael Harrington (who wrote a popular book "The Other America" on poverty, which apparently influenced JFK and Johnson), decided that the best thing to do was to play electoral politics as part of the Democratic Party rather than continuing to fight on in a Socialist Party. Harrington worked with several other activists to establish what would eventually become the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which focused on putting pressure on the Democratic Party to implement policy rather than the traditional voter education goals of Socialist Party campaigns. Harrington and his activists went to the Democratic conventions to demand more socialist policy as part of the Democratic platform. They were successful getting many ideas written into the platform (at that time, the "most liberal platform in party history"), and were at first embolded by some early steps taken by Carter, but Democratic presidents have utterly failed to ever implement those socialist ideas in the Democratic platform ever since. In fact, the socialist-backed candidates were never picked, and the party instead picked pro-corporate party insiders, with candidates since Dukakis growing more and more weary of calling themselves "liberal" (we see that in today's Democratic candidates that often proudly call themselves "centrists"). With many activists moving to DSA and assisting the Democrats, the Socialist Party essentially died out nationwide (with a few holdovers here and there).
That story really stood out to me as a parallel to our recent elections. To stop Trump, Bernie and many others made the argument to hold the nose and support Democrats and vote for Clinton. Progressives were kicked out of the convention as Clinton nominated Tim Kaine, a fairly conservative Democrat, as her VP pick rather than a more progressive person like Elizabeth Warren or a socialist like Bernie. Several Bernie backers were placed on the party's platform committee earlier in the year, but Clinton-backed members defeated most proposals from the Berniecrats while the items that made it into the platform were essentially ignored by Clinton and her surrogates. Much like how in 2008 many rallied around Obama for hope and change, only to be disappointed when Obama ignored practically all of his progressive policy promises in order to implement a right-wing healthcare plan and continue much of Bush's economic and war policies.
This reaffirms my belief that attempting to work in the current money-dominated two-party system is a failed strategy for progressives and socialists. I knew that Obama and Clinton had no interest in implementing progressives policy, but I was surprised to learn it dates back much further. Progressive and socialist activists within the party have been trying to work with the Democrats for 50 years, only to watch Democrats drift further and further to the right each election. It feels insane to me to think that continuing this strategy will somehow magically work finally in 2018 or 2020, when it hasn't happened yet in 50 years.
It also confirms that third-parties can and do win; the strategy of a strong Socialist Party resisting both Republicans and Democrats has worked in the past to bring about important change. The strategy works because the major parties have to work to win the election. They have to offer better plans than you if they want to win, they cannot rest on status quo that isn't working. In a two-party system, it is too easy to be lazy and say "Well at least I'm not as bad as the other side!" and let the status quo stand, as we have seen for years now. Having third, fourth, fifth parties requires everyone to work harder, and so all Americans win with the best ideas being elected and implemented.
I view the Green Party as the spiritual successor to the Socialist Party. In fact, many Greens refer to the party as "eco-socialist", to emphasize that the Green platform is a combination of de-centralized democratic socialist economic policy with a need to practice ecological wisdom in our industries and economy (publicly-owned production that still spews out pollution is not a longer-term viable option either!). Socialists I think would find a lot in the Green platform that they would love, and probably don't even realize it! Not long ago, I had spoken with a few socialists at a rally in the early days of the Trump presidency, and asked if they'd sign to get a Green candidate on the ballot. They at first said no thanks. When I asked why, it became clear that they thought Greens weren't socialist enough for their support. As I explained the Green platform, they started to perk up, with one person saying "Oh, I didn't know that's what Greens stood for".
I think our challenge is to teach people about the history of socialism in our country - the labor movements, civil rights movement, etc. - and work to correct those misunderstandings of both socialism as a whole and the Green platform specifically. I know my goal is to help grow the Green Party into a strong champion of progressive socialist ideals in the Pittsburgh area. I think we can finish the work that Debs and others started more than 100 years ago, and work for a more just society and economy for all. I invite all others in the area to join the Green Party and help us create that vision.
Monday, October 23, 2017
Friday, October 20, 2017
Nearly a Year
So it's been nearly a year since the 2016 election, and about the same since my last post (which was thoughts on improving our election system as a bit of a retrospective on voting issues that led to Trump becoming president).
The nearly year of Trump as president has been interesting. It's difficult to sum up a year in a single blog post, but let's review a few of the most important events that stand out in my memory at this moment.
The year started with some mass mobilization for demonstrations and protests that in my view quickly fell apart. I haven't heard much from the Womens' March, or Science March, or any other group since then, which has been disappointing. It shows the events were knee-jerk rather than pushing for a real movement. Honestly, I wonder if the events were Democratic Party supported more to suppress coverage of progressive movements more so than for any purpose. I personally attended both the Womens' March and the Science March in Pittsburgh, and both events disappointed me. Very short, quick marches, with a few guest speakers that railed against Trump and said how important it was to elect Democrats. They were really campaign rallies. There was no discussion on keeping the movement going, on how to continue action, no calls for more people to run for office, certainly no discussion on the flaws of the 2016 Democratic campaign. I've still not seen a "post-mortem" for the Clinton campaign from Democrats, much less anyone at these type of events addressing the real issue, that the two-party duopoly is what gave us Trump (since it also gave the weak, corrupt candidate Clinton as the "opposition"). We have to break the two-party system, get big donor money out of politics, if we want to prevent this scenario again, but few "leaders" talk about it.
Trump has enriched his own pockets through his businesses that he has still never divested from. He and the GOP have been pushing for repealing the ACA ("ObamaCare"), which so far has been unsuccessful, but they're now trying to essentially defund large parts of it in their new budget and tax reform policy. The tax reform proposal is essentially a big giveaway to the ultra rich at the expense of social programs and healthcare funding. And Trump is playing a bit of a game of "chicken" with North Korea, pushing us to the brink of war in an effort to get a "better deal". While there has been pushback on it at the grassroots level, again I have not seen a very strong Democratic response to the proposals -- some Democrats have even voted FOR some of the GOP plans and Trump nominees, in what has been a very ineffective "resistance". In fact, Democratic politicians seem to be waxing nostalgic for Republican politicians of old such as George W. Bush rather than embracing progressives and Bernie Sanders. We also can't forget about the Democrats' pushing us to the brink of war with Russia too, with their blame of Russia for "hacking" the elections in favor of Trump as an "act of war". (Notice that this rhetoric has recently died down drastically as evidence came out that Russian oligarch businessmen were actually engaged in pay-for-play with Obama and Clinton to obtain a nuclear deal with the US starting in 2009, as reported by the New York Times. Sounds like it's becoming the pot calling the kettle black.)
While I'm not sure I'd call myself "surprised", the fact that a year after the election I'm still seeing attacks on Bernie Sanders and his policy disturbs me. DNC Chair Tom Perez (which itself was a big fight against Bernie-backed Keith Ellison, that had its own controverseries) recently purged progressives -- those that backed Bernie or Ellison -- from DNC leadership roles. He appointed Donna Brazile, who was caught aiding the Clinton campaign during the primaries and had to resign her position at CNN because of it, to the DNC Rules Committee which sets primary rules for 2020. Previous DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, who had to resign after emails were leaked showing her collusion with the Clinton campaign, is still a top Democrat running for re-election. All evidence points to the fact that the Democratic Party is preparing to defend itself from a progressive challenge, more so than combat the Republicans.
I think it stems from Democrats relying on the two-party system. They don't feel like they need to try, because liberals will vote for them if only to stop GOP from continuing power. They want to have their cake and eat it too, by keeping all of the corrupting donor money that influences their policies for corporations rather than the people, while still winning elections because you "have no other choice".
The year has convinced me that we will only get progressive reform in this country with a strong third-party push. Republicans and Democrats have absolutely no incentive to change when they are fine with the status quo -- they keep winning your votes because you think you have no choice, while they stay in power due to gerrymandering, and keep collecting all of that private donor money. We can march and protest and complain all we want, but they have no reason to take the American people seriously when they know at the end of the day most will continue to hold their nose and vote for the establishment.
We have to have a strong third-party. It's counter-productive to continue supporting the establishment. Either that third-party must become a major party, or it will grow to exert enough pressure that the Democrats and Republicans finally take the threat seriously and do it themselves to prevent that third-party takeover.
To build that third-party, it is critical that we talk with activists and voters more. Educate on American and world history, the history of the labor movement, progressivism, and socialism, and how third parties have been instrumental to many of the biggest leaps forward in American history. Find grassroots leaders dedicated to growing a third-party at the local level, for if we can win localities and begin implementing progressive policy,
My goal moving forward, more so than direct activism or protests, is this education. I believe we have to have educated voters united in a new grassroots third-party before activism or electoral politics can be effective at bringing change. Everything else is "jumping the gun" in some sense; if party leaders don't acknowledge your protests, nothing will change, and like I said, many of the protests I've been to recently have utterly failed at voter education or encouraging people to run for office, and so have been completely wasted efforts. We have to make education and networking a priority, think long-term, rather than knee-jerk reactions that don't accomplish anything and even sometimes are counter-productive.
I have been reading a lot recently, and have really enjoyed learning about history of politics and political philosophy. So I plan on writing future blog posts about recommended reading for progressives based on the things that I've found enjoyable and informative. Watch for those posts coming up! Please subscribe and check for updates. I'll be announcing these posts on Twitter @ProgressivePgh.
The nearly year of Trump as president has been interesting. It's difficult to sum up a year in a single blog post, but let's review a few of the most important events that stand out in my memory at this moment.
The year started with some mass mobilization for demonstrations and protests that in my view quickly fell apart. I haven't heard much from the Womens' March, or Science March, or any other group since then, which has been disappointing. It shows the events were knee-jerk rather than pushing for a real movement. Honestly, I wonder if the events were Democratic Party supported more to suppress coverage of progressive movements more so than for any purpose. I personally attended both the Womens' March and the Science March in Pittsburgh, and both events disappointed me. Very short, quick marches, with a few guest speakers that railed against Trump and said how important it was to elect Democrats. They were really campaign rallies. There was no discussion on keeping the movement going, on how to continue action, no calls for more people to run for office, certainly no discussion on the flaws of the 2016 Democratic campaign. I've still not seen a "post-mortem" for the Clinton campaign from Democrats, much less anyone at these type of events addressing the real issue, that the two-party duopoly is what gave us Trump (since it also gave the weak, corrupt candidate Clinton as the "opposition"). We have to break the two-party system, get big donor money out of politics, if we want to prevent this scenario again, but few "leaders" talk about it.
Trump has enriched his own pockets through his businesses that he has still never divested from. He and the GOP have been pushing for repealing the ACA ("ObamaCare"), which so far has been unsuccessful, but they're now trying to essentially defund large parts of it in their new budget and tax reform policy. The tax reform proposal is essentially a big giveaway to the ultra rich at the expense of social programs and healthcare funding. And Trump is playing a bit of a game of "chicken" with North Korea, pushing us to the brink of war in an effort to get a "better deal". While there has been pushback on it at the grassroots level, again I have not seen a very strong Democratic response to the proposals -- some Democrats have even voted FOR some of the GOP plans and Trump nominees, in what has been a very ineffective "resistance". In fact, Democratic politicians seem to be waxing nostalgic for Republican politicians of old such as George W. Bush rather than embracing progressives and Bernie Sanders. We also can't forget about the Democrats' pushing us to the brink of war with Russia too, with their blame of Russia for "hacking" the elections in favor of Trump as an "act of war". (Notice that this rhetoric has recently died down drastically as evidence came out that Russian oligarch businessmen were actually engaged in pay-for-play with Obama and Clinton to obtain a nuclear deal with the US starting in 2009, as reported by the New York Times. Sounds like it's becoming the pot calling the kettle black.)
While I'm not sure I'd call myself "surprised", the fact that a year after the election I'm still seeing attacks on Bernie Sanders and his policy disturbs me. DNC Chair Tom Perez (which itself was a big fight against Bernie-backed Keith Ellison, that had its own controverseries) recently purged progressives -- those that backed Bernie or Ellison -- from DNC leadership roles. He appointed Donna Brazile, who was caught aiding the Clinton campaign during the primaries and had to resign her position at CNN because of it, to the DNC Rules Committee which sets primary rules for 2020. Previous DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Shultz, who had to resign after emails were leaked showing her collusion with the Clinton campaign, is still a top Democrat running for re-election. All evidence points to the fact that the Democratic Party is preparing to defend itself from a progressive challenge, more so than combat the Republicans.
I think it stems from Democrats relying on the two-party system. They don't feel like they need to try, because liberals will vote for them if only to stop GOP from continuing power. They want to have their cake and eat it too, by keeping all of the corrupting donor money that influences their policies for corporations rather than the people, while still winning elections because you "have no other choice".
The year has convinced me that we will only get progressive reform in this country with a strong third-party push. Republicans and Democrats have absolutely no incentive to change when they are fine with the status quo -- they keep winning your votes because you think you have no choice, while they stay in power due to gerrymandering, and keep collecting all of that private donor money. We can march and protest and complain all we want, but they have no reason to take the American people seriously when they know at the end of the day most will continue to hold their nose and vote for the establishment.
We have to have a strong third-party. It's counter-productive to continue supporting the establishment. Either that third-party must become a major party, or it will grow to exert enough pressure that the Democrats and Republicans finally take the threat seriously and do it themselves to prevent that third-party takeover.
To build that third-party, it is critical that we talk with activists and voters more. Educate on American and world history, the history of the labor movement, progressivism, and socialism, and how third parties have been instrumental to many of the biggest leaps forward in American history. Find grassroots leaders dedicated to growing a third-party at the local level, for if we can win localities and begin implementing progressive policy,
My goal moving forward, more so than direct activism or protests, is this education. I believe we have to have educated voters united in a new grassroots third-party before activism or electoral politics can be effective at bringing change. Everything else is "jumping the gun" in some sense; if party leaders don't acknowledge your protests, nothing will change, and like I said, many of the protests I've been to recently have utterly failed at voter education or encouraging people to run for office, and so have been completely wasted efforts. We have to make education and networking a priority, think long-term, rather than knee-jerk reactions that don't accomplish anything and even sometimes are counter-productive.
I have been reading a lot recently, and have really enjoyed learning about history of politics and political philosophy. So I plan on writing future blog posts about recommended reading for progressives based on the things that I've found enjoyable and informative. Watch for those posts coming up! Please subscribe and check for updates. I'll be announcing these posts on Twitter @ProgressivePgh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)